Finding Truth in the “Would Not Vote for a Mormon” Polls

RomneyExperience.com ^ | 7/26/07

[tantiboh]

Democratic political consultant Mark Mellman has a very good piece up today at The Hill on the baffling and illegitimate opposition among voters to Mitt Romney due to his religion. I liked his closing paragraphs:

In July of 1958, 24 percent of respondents told Gallup they would not vote for a Catholic for president, almost identical to Gallup’s reading on Mormons today. Two years later, John F. Kennedy became the first Catholic to assume the oath of office. Within eight months, the number refusing to vote for a Catholic was cut almost in half.

[snip]

Mellman also discusses an interesting poll he helped construct, in which the pollsters asked half of their respondents whether they would support a candidate with certain characteristics, and asked the other half about another candidate with the exact same characteristics, with one difference. The first candidate was Baptist, the second candidate was Mormon. The Baptist had a huge advantage over the Mormon candidate, by about 20 points.

[snip]

However, more recent polls have attempted to fix the anonymity problem. A recent Time Magazine poll (read the original report here), for example, got to the heart of the question by asking respondents if they are less likely to vote for Mitt Romney specifically because he is a Mormon. The result is not as bad as some reporting on the poll has suggested. For example, while 30% of Republicans say they are less likely to vote for Romney because of his religion, fully 15% of other Republicans say that characteristic makes them more likely to vote for him. And while many have reported the finding that 23% of Republicans are “worried” by Romney’s Mormonism, the more important (but less-reported) number is that 73% say they hold no such reservations...

[Elsie]

I would rather vote for him than Clinton, if those are the only choices, but I really want some better choices before we get to the actual election.

I think THIS is a statement we can ALL agree upon!!

[Elsie]

Part of what changed my mind was talking to my mom about the reason I was not aborted. By that time, I understood why abortion was never an option for her.

Well; judging from your home page, you are around 55 yo, so at the time you were born, abortion was illegal in this country.

[Elsie]

Why did he change so (as it appears to me) suddenly?

Suddenly, I can understand.

Late in life is what I have trouble with!

(Although better late than never!!)

[Elsie]

A faithful LDS POTUS on the other hand would defend your religious liberty, including your right to go out and attach the church he belongs to.

I can agree with this.

 

 

---

But THESE folks were sure worried about having THEIR church attached!

---

 

.

.

.

There is nothing in my teachings to the Church or in those of my associates, during the time specified, which can be reasonably construed to inculcate or encourage polygamy; and when any Elder of the Church has used language which appeared to convey any such teaching, he has been promptly reproved. And I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land.

WILFORD WOODRUFF
President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

President Lorenzo Snow offered the following:

“I move that, recognizing Wilford Woodruff as the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the only man on the earth at the present time who holds the keys of the sealing ordinances, we consider him fully authorized by virtue of his position to issue the Manifesto which has been read in our hearing, and which is dated September 24th, 1890, and that as a Church in General Conference assembled, we accept his declaration concerning plural marriages as authoritative and binding.”

The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous.

Salt Lake City, Utah, October 6, 1890.

EXCERPTS FROM THREE ADDRESSES BY
PRESIDENT WILFORD WOODRUFF
REGARDING THE MANIFESTO

The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty. (Sixty-first Semiannual General Conference of the Church, Monday, October 6, 1890, Salt Lake City, Utah. Reported in Deseret Evening News, October 11, 1890, p. 2.)

It matters not who lives or who dies, or who is called to lead this Church, they have got to lead it by the inspiration of Almighty God. If they do not do it that way, they cannot do it at all. . . .

I have had some revelations of late, and very important ones to me, and I will tell you what the Lord has said to me. Let me bring your minds to what is termed the manifesto. . . .

The Lord has told me to ask the Latter-day Saints a question, and He also told me that if they would listen to what I said to them and answer the question put to them, by the Spirit and power of God, they would all answer alike, and they would all believe alike with regard to this matter.

The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue—to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people, and

 

at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice); or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law, and through doing so leave the Prophets, Apostles and fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church, and also leave the Temples in the hands of the Saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the Gospel, both for the living and the dead?

The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice. If we had not stopped it, you would have had no use for . . . any of the men in this temple at Logan; for all ordinances would be stopped throughout the land of Zion. Confusion would reign throughout Israel, and many men would be made prisoners. This trouble would have come upon the whole Church, and we should have been compelled to stop the practice. Now, the question is, whether it should be stopped in this manner, or in the way the Lord has manifested to us, and leave our Prophets and Apostles and fathers free men, and the temples in the hands of the people,

 

 so that the dead may be redeemed. A large number has already been delivered from the prison house in the spirit world by this people, and shall the work go on or stop? This is the question I lay before the Latter-day Saints. You have to judge for yourselves. I want you to answer it for yourselves. I shall not answer it; but I say to you that that is exactly the condition we as a people would have been in had we not taken the course we have.

. . . I saw exactly what would come to pass if there was not something done. I have had this spirit upon me for a long time. But I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write. . . .

I leave this with you, for you to contemplate and consider. The Lord is at work with us. (Cache Stake Conference, Logan, Utah, Sunday, November 1, 1891. Reported in Deseret Weekly, November 14, 1891.)

Now I will tell you what was manifested to me and what the Son of God performed in this thing. . . . All these things would have come to pass, as God Almighty lives, had not that Manifesto been given. Therefore, the Son of God felt disposed to have that thing presented to the Church and to the world for purposes in his own mind. The Lord had decreed the establishment of Zion. He had decreed the finishing of this temple. He had decreed that the salvation of the living and the dead should be given in these valleys of the mountains. And Almighty God decreed that the Devil should not thwart it. If you can understand that, that is a key to it. (From a discourse at the sixth session of the dedication of the Salt Lake Temple, April 1893. Typescript of Dedicatory Services, Archives, Church Historical Department, Salt Lake City, Utah.)

[Elsie]

...but I can tell you that conservative people don't like having their religion compared to something as evil as liberalism...

 

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/js_h/1/19#19

  17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself ^adelivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I ^bsaw two ^cPersonages, whose brightness and ^dglory defy all description, ^estanding above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My ^fBeloved ^gSon. Hear Him!

  18 My object in going to ^ainquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.

  19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all ^awrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those ^bprofessors were all ^ccorrupt; that: “they ^ddraw near to me with their lips, but their ^ehearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the ^fcommandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the ^gpower thereof.”

  20 He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. When I came to myself again, I found myself ^alying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home. And as I leaned up to the fireplace, ^bmother inquired what the matter was. I replied, “Never mind, all is well—I am well enough off.” I then said to my mother, “I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true.” 

 

 

 

Tell me all about it!!!

[Elsie]

Ah! You guys are, quite literally, on a different page! OO is looking IN the thread itself, and OS is looking at the page that lists POSTS TO HIM --> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/my/comments

[Elsie]

You let those pukes in and you won't even have patched britches to hide the chunks they'll bite out of it.

"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

[Elsie]

Like it or not, Osage Orange, those who bash Mormonism represent a fringe element of our society. They just happen to be remarkably vocal.

Likewise...

...those who bash Christianity represent a vocal element of our society. They just happen to be remarkably well-entrenched and powerful!

[Elsie]

Your insistence on taking a third-hand account of something supposedly heard by someone when they were 11 but reported decades later as being reliable makes me really wonder if you are a seeker of truth, or just someone out to justify his position whatever the facts may be.

I thought JS was 14 when he had a vision (or two).

[restornu]

That was the Lord answering Joseph question and why he should not join none of them!

You know the Creator of the Universe I should think if anyone who knew from where he speak would be God.

That being said it is not up to the LDS themselve to bash another creed just for Kicks!

Now if a discussion arosed than each would share their belief but I am not going to walk down the street or the internet street and bop one out the blue for their belief!

[Elsie]

Then you have The Great Moon Hoax of 1835.

Today we have the one THIS MONTH!!

If you've NOT received an e-mail telling you that MARS will be 'as large as a full moon' at the end of August, just wait!

[Elsie]

check SNOPES for... MARS, moon, august

[Elsie]

A rousing time for all!

You spelled ROASTING wrong! ;^)

[Elsie]

John the Revelator "saw an angel standing in the sun" (Rev. 19:17). Perhaps we have much to learn about inhabitants of other heavenly spheres.

Many times I've been standing in the shade.

[Elsie]

;^)

[Elsie]

 

I think you’re being a bit harsh on Mormons. I’ll leave it at that.

 

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/js_h/1/19#19

  17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself ^adelivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I ^bsaw two ^cPersonages, whose brightness and ^dglory defy all description, ^estanding above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My ^fBeloved ^gSon. Hear Him!

  18 My object in going to ^ainquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.

  19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all ^awrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those ^bprofessors were all ^ccorrupt; that: “they ^ddraw near to me with their lips, but their ^ehearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the ^fcommandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the ^gpower thereof.”

  20 He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. When I came to myself again, I found myself ^alying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home. And as I leaned up to the fireplace, ^bmother inquired what the matter was. I replied, “Never mind, all is well—I am well enough off.” I then said to my mother, “I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true.” 

 

 

Good idea!!

[Elsie]

It’s not going to hurt Republican to lose their votes, as the south is going to go Republican, anyway.”~

WAIT!!

I thought the 'south' was DEMOCRAT!!!

[Victoria_R]

A faithful LDS POTUS on the other hand would defend your religious liberty, including your right to go out and attach the church he belongs to.

Based on my experience with the LDS on a local and state level, I don't believe a "faithful LDS POTUS" would do this.

I lived in a LDS dominated area. Pioneer Day was a bigger deal than the 4th of July, the non-LDS were expected to conform to LDS standards, and the non-LDS were discriminated against on a regular basis. If a non-LDS person brought up something like Constitutional Rights or spoke against the LDS church, they were attacked by the LDS faithful.

[Old Student]

“I read John 3:16 very broadly: “For whosoever should believeth in Him....”

I don’t know how we could possibly read in narrowly given our many, many failings in life. It is my belief that God’s love for man is both undeserved though infinite. If we turn to Him through His Son, Jesus Christ and truly accept the gift given, that is enough.

The details fade away. For none of us understands them fully, nor will we ever this lifetime. We must grow through Christ, and that is all we can do.”

OH, so VERY well said! I couldn’t have said it better if given a thousand years to think about it and try to phrase it effectively! He loves us and forgives us even though we none of us deserve it! He would have died for me alone, if I were the only on one in need. (and for you, too.)

[Old Student]

All F-111’s had problems also with fuel leaks. The sealant used in the built-up tankage had a tendency to liquify when exposed to heat and humidity (or possibly some other factor we never identified while I was working on them). I specialized in hanger queens. We’d get the fuel-system guys in to reseal the tanks while I was putting them back together after having them cannibalized. The first one they gave me had been deadlined for over a year. I had it flyable in less than 90 days. I got it back about 4 months later, leaking again. It seems to me that the -D model had more problems than the others, but I can’t swear to that; been a long time ago, and much water under that bridge. I’ve retrained twice since then, into radically different fields, and that was before I retired.